Thank you very much.
I think that if there is a precedent to be set, it is the deference that we show to our security apparatuses, including CSIS, our military and police. As parliamentarians, we have privileges. There is lots of jurisprudence on which we have done lock-ups and had access to unredacted documents for that purpose. I don't think it would prejudice any other committees in the work they do.
What we've seen here, in my opinion, time and time again, is a clear unwillingness to adhere to what I have called the “duty of candour”. Having accountability on this technology would, I imagine, be a part—a significant part, hopefully—of the legislative recommendations that would come out of this study.
What we heard today was an unwillingness to be frank and concise in answering very basic questions, so I would ask that they be—I would require that they be—unredacted. There shouldn't be anything overly sensitive, unless, of course, it's contrary to the testimony that has been provided to this committee through witnesses, in which case it would open up a whole other subset of challenges that we would face.
However, for the purposes of this, Mr. Chair, I would be willing, if it suits the government side, to have a lockdown requirement within this committee so that we would have direct access to the documents. They would not be made public, but we would retain our long-standing traditions in the Westminster system for parliamentary privilege to send for documents, people and any other evidence as required by committee.